GREG EDWARD EVANS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Greg Edward Evans appeals two conditions imposed following probation revocation for attempted sexual battery: a requirement to maintain full-time employment earning at least $800 per month, and a requirement to obtain psychological evaluation and treatment delegated to a community control officer. The court reversed, holding that the employment condition constitutes fundamental error and that the psychological evaluation requirement improperly delegated judicial duties.
The full-time employment condition earning at least $800 per month constitutes fundamental error and is reversed as unreasonable and unrelated to the crime. The psychological evaluation requirement must be delineated by the court rather than delegated to the probation officer, though the court may delegate supervisory responsibilities. The conditions are reversed and remanded for modification.
[1] A condition of probation must be reasonable and rationally related to the nature of the crime and aimed at encouraging the defendant's rehabilitation.
[2] A contemporaneous objection is not required to appeal an illegal or fundamentally erroneous condition of probation.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A condition of probation must be reasonable, and must be 'rationally related to the nature of the crime and aimed at encouraging the defendant's rehabilitation.'”
Establishes the legal standard for validity of probation conditions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEvans was serving probation for attempted sexual battery when his probation was revoked. The trial court imposed new community control and probation c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
Greg Edward Evans, appellant, seeks review of two conditions of community con- tool and probation imposed by the trial court, after revocation of the probation he was serving for the offense of attempted sexual battery. Appellant contends the trial court erred in ordering him to work full-time and to earn at least $800 per month, and in delegating the requirement that appellant obtain psychological evaluation and treatment to the community control/probation officer. We reverse.
A condition of probation must be reasonable, and must be “rationally related to the nature of the crime and aimed at encouraging the defendant’s rehabilitation.” Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368, 1370-71 (Fla.1991); Smith v. State, 513 So. 2d 1367, 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Moreover, a contemporaneous objection is not a prerequisite to appeal an illegal condition of probation, or a condition of probation that “is so egregious as to be the equivalent of fundamental error.” Larson, 572 So. 2d at 1370-71.
A condition of probation requiring the probationer to maintain full-time employment has been found to be sufficiently egregious as to constitute fundamental error. Walls v. State, 596 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Since such factors as a down-turn in the economy could prevent the completion of such a condition of probation, a more appropriate course would be to order the probationer to seek gainful employment. Boudreaux v. State, 578 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Cowan v. State, 527 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Walls, 596 So. 2d at 812.
In a similar vein, it is a settled principle that a trial court may not delegate judicial duties to a probation officer. Larson, 572 So. 2d at 1371; Singleton v. State, 582 So. 2d 657, 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, it is proper for a trial court to delegate authority to exercise incidental discretion, such as supervision of counseling for a probationer, provided the exercise of discretion is used for rehabilitative purposes. Larson, 572 So. 2d at 1371; Singleton, 582 So. 2d at 658.
Application of the foregoing legal principles to the instant case leads to the conclusion that the condition of probation and community control requiring appellant to maintain full-time employment, and to earn at least $800 per month, constitutes fundamental error within the contemplation of Larson and Walls. The condition is unreasonable in the context of the current job market, and it bears no rational relationship to appellant’s conviction for attempted sexual battery. On remand, the trial court may modify these provisions to require that appellant must maintain or actively seek gainful employment. By the same token, if, upon remand, the trial court wishes to reimpose psychological evaluation and treatment, the specifics of such requirement must be delineated by the court. However, the trial court may delegate supervisory responsibilities to the community control/probation officer. See Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974, 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Accordingly, those portions of the community control and probation orders concerning conditions of full-time employment at no less than $800 per month, and psychological evaluation and treatment as directed by the community control officer, are reversed and remanded for modification consistent with this opinion.
JOANOS, C.J., and ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Armstrong v. State, 620 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…aintain full-time and part-time employment. We agree with appellant that such a condition was sufficiently egregious to be the equivalent of fundamental error and, thus, appellant was not required to make a contemporaneous objection. Evans v. State, 608 So. 2d 90 (Fla.1st DCA 1992); Walls v. State, 596 So. 2d 811 (Fla.4th DCA 1992). Because economic conditions beyond a defendant’s control could prevent the defendant from completing such a condition, courts have modified this condition to require instead that…
-
Kirkland v. State, 666 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…any dependents to the best of your ability, as directed by your officer.” Requiring a probationer to maintain full-time employment is an improper condition of probation because a down-turn in the economy could prevent its completion. Evans v. State, 608 So. 2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). A more appropriate condition would be to require the probationer to “seek gainful employment.” Id.; Sullivan v. State, 630 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The portion of condition (8) that requires Kirkland to “work diligent…
-
Reynaldo Antonio Aviles v. State, 165 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); White v. State, 619 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Reed v. State, 865 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). A probationer can be ordered to either maintain full-time employment or provide proof of job searches. Evans v. State, 608 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Miller. But without providing an unemployed probationer the reasonable opportunity to secure employment, the trial court created an invalid condition of probation. Probation cannot be revoked or its terms modified for violating…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Myren Wayne Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1991)
- Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Walls v. State, 596 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Boudreaux v. State, 578 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Singleton v. State, 582 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Hackworth v. State, 527 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Smith v. State, 513 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)